05 April 2014

Police deny burying truth as IBAC investigates

VICTORIA Police have been forced to deny they are burying the truth as an IBAC probe into their handling of informers gets under way. 
In a statement issued today the force said: “To be clear, this is not about burying the truth.”

As an anti-corruption IBAC probe into the police handling of the affair begins, Victoria Police have detailed their internal reviews of human source management.

“We are extremely mindful however of the need to meet community expectations of integrity and accountability in all that we do,” the police statement said.

“That is why we regularly review our practises (sic) in this area, and we do so in close cooperation with our oversight bodies, to ensure independence of review.

“This work cannot be done publicly because it would threaten the safety of our informers and witnesses.
“But the community should be assured, this work is happening.”

The statement goes on to say: “Specifically, in the past two years, we have commissioned an independent review dealing with human source management which contained recommendations about our human source management processes and governance.

“This review was conducted by former Victorian Police Chief Commissioner Neil Comrie and we provided documentation from the report to OPI as per our normal practice.”

The statement said Victoria Police had met with IBAC on Tuesday and “provided them with a progress report on the situation.”

heraldsun.com.au 4 Apr 2014

Victoria Police is factually a corrupt organisation, which has been proven time and time again.

There is NO OBLIGATION to provide factual information whatsoever, as there is no Act to reinforce this.

Exposing Victoria Police's criminal activities is a start.

04 April 2014

IBM: Personal information posted on social media sites seen by major firms

Corruption watchdog IBAC demands answers from Victoria Police on Lawyer X scandal

VICTORIA’S anti-corruption watchdog is demanding answers from Victoria Police on the Lawyer X scandal.   
As the Herald Sun learned dozens of cases are being reviewed in the wake of the Lawyer X scandal, the state’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission confirmed it had requested information from Victoria Police.

IBAC Commissioner Stephen O’Bryan, SC, said he was seeking information from Victoria Police to determine whether there had been any potential police misconduct.

“The public demand confidence in police. If there has been police misconduct, we will further investigate this thoroughly and fairly,” he said.

The Herald Sun has been told several convicted criminals have inquired of their lawyers whether they could lodge appeals.

Police are also understood to have flagged with prosecutors that convictions in more than a dozen cases could be in jeopardy.

An IBAC spokeswoman said IBAC had been briefed by Victoria Police late on Thursday.

She said its probe into the Lawyer X scandal had not been prompted by a complaint.

Asked on ABC radio if there should be a review to ensure cases hadn’t been jeopardised by police, Attorney-General Robert Clark said: “You’re begging a lot of questions.”

“I think it’s best just to say that these are matters that are now before the courts, and they’re matters of police operations under the responsibility of the Chief Commissioner,” Mr Clark said.

“And of course, Victoria also has an independent oversight body, namely IBAC, with powers to investigate all instances of police misconduct, with powers similar to that of a royal commission,” he said.

Mr Clark was also asked whether there was a need “for any previous cases, gangland cases, to at least be reviewed. Or do you think there’s a need for that?”

He replied, “Regulation of the legal profession is undertaken by the Legal Services Commissioner, and again, that’s an independent office that’s been of long standing.”

Premier Denis Napthine called on anyone with information  about the scandal to contact IBAC.

“I would say to all Victorians, no matter where they work in Victoria, whether they work in the media or whether they work more broadly in Victoria - if people have information that suggests misconduct by any public sector employee, they should report that to IBAC,” he said.

“And IBAC have the powers we have given them, equivalent to a royal commission.

“This is a standing opportunity for people to report any misconduct or any of their reasonable suspicions.”

Mr O’Bryan also called on anyone with information on the Lawyer X scandal to contact IBAC.
“IBAC is entirely independent of the police, and we will assess any information provided to us carefully and in strict confidence,” he said.

Mr O’Bryan said IBAC was also liaising with the Legal Services Commissioner, Michael McGarvie - who is responsible for policing misconduct in the legal profession - as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions, John Champion, SC.

heraldsun.com.au 3 Apr 2014

Victoria Police is a corrupt organisation, that does not follow the law, but rather operates in such a manner that is beneficial to the corporatocracy that it is subservient (employed by) to.

Victoria Police is the new solicitor (one that seeks trade) for the courts in order to 'charge' the law abiding person for financial benefit to the courts, simultaneously cataloging the 'criminals'.

The 'justice' system is in collusion with the criminal activities of Victoria Police, supporting the illegal activites.

The actions of the authorities not only follow but are right on track with the 'Nanny State' agenda.

03 April 2014

Remove the Roman Catholics from government

From the official Australasian Legal Information Institute (Austlii):



Transcribed enactments

Remove the Roman Catholics from government the Vatican with a writ. 

Destroy the Vatican's power over Australians.

The law states:  no Roman Catholics.

 Instant disqualification regarding the criminal Tony Abbott.


How many Roman Catholics are there in government and departments?

Sorry it's the law, get them out.

Use the justice of the peace, not the Roman Catholic star chambers courts.

Page 19

9. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom, to be governed by a popish prince, or by any King or Queen marrying a papist; the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, do further pray that it may be enacted, That all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the see or church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded, and be forever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be, and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and been joyed by such person or persons, being protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in casethe said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing, or marrying as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

Remove the roman catholics  from government the Vatican with a writ.


                   Any person who:
                      (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power


Penalty for sitting when disqualified

                   Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Flight Centre fined $11 million for price fixing

A Flight Centre store in Brisbane.
A Flight Centre store in Brisbane. Source: Supplied
A Federal Court judge has ordered travel agency Flight Centre to pay an $11 million fine for inducing three airlines into price-fixing arrangements. 

Justice John Logan ordered the company to pay the fine within 45 days.

In December, the Federal Court upheld the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s case that Flight Centre had induced Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines and Emirates to stop directly offering international airfares at prices lower than that offered by the travel agency.

The ACCC had claimed Flight Centre had broken the law on six occasions between 2005 and 2009.
The company was found to have breached the Trade Practices Act on five occasions.

In imposing the $11 million fine, Justice Logan also ordered Flight Centre to refrain from trying to make any price arrangement with any international airline for three years.

He concluded that in August 2005, Flight Centre had threatened to withdraw from selling Singapore Airlines flights unless the carrier agreed to pay a distribution margin, which he said was designed to have a “substantial lessening of competition”.

The judge had initially ordered Flight Centre to pay the fine to the commonwealth within seven days, but ultimately agreed to a request from the barrister representing the listed company, Shane Doyle QC, for the fine to be paid in 45 days.

Flight Centre had said it would appeal the judgment, and on Friday said it may also appeal the penalties.
“Last year’s test case outcome was disappointing, but has not created a need for fundamental changes within our business, as any such changes that would have been required as a result of the judgment were made several years ago,’” managing director Graham Turner said in a statement.

“While we are comfortable that we comply with the law, we consider it appropriate to test the decision at an appeal.

“This will clarify our position and rights as an agent.”

Any appeals are likely to be heard in the 2014/15 financial year, Flight Centre said.

The company said that the $11 million fine, which would be included in its accounts for the current financial year, would be partially offset by an unrelated one-off gain in its accounts.

It still expects its underlying pre-tax profit for the financial year to be between $370 million and $385 million, up at least eight per cent from the previous year.

Flight Centre shares were down 8c at $52.05 at 1152 (AEDT).

news.com.au 28 Mar 2014

Was Dame Quentin Bryce really a dame when Tony Abbott said she was?

Outgoing Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce, known for her good works. Former governor-general Dame Quentin Bryce.

Tony Abbott announced last week that Quentin Bryce had been made a dame and Peter Cosgrove a knight. But had they really?

The Prime Minister's surprise statement began: "On my recommendation, Her Majesty the Queen has amended the Letters Patent constituting the Order of Australia."

Letters Patent are the official instrument, the parchment signed by the Queen's own hand with her distinctive "Elizabeth R", that give force to her decisions.

General Peter Cosgrove is sworn in as Australia's new Governor-General. New Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove. Photo: Andrew Meares

But, mysteriously, although they are public documents published in the Government Gazette, no one has been able to provide evidence that one was signed.
 Or show that the Queen had signed the parchment at the time of the Prime Minister's declaration.

This raises an awkward question. When Mr Abbott publicly pronounced Ms Bryce a dame in time for her official reception on March 25, was she? General Cosgrove started using the title Sir on March 28 after his swearing-in as Governor-General, but again was he officially allowed to claim that title?

After repeated requests over several days, neither the Prime Minister's office nor Buckingham Palace would give Fairfax Media the exact date on which the monarch signed the official instrument.

On Wednesday afternoon - after Fairfax Media published this story online - a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said "the documents" had been signed by the Queen on March 19.

But the Prime Minister's office continued to refuse to release the signed parchment, saying the Letters Patent, which are public documents, would be published "in due course".

Government House was unable to shed any light on the mystery. An official said Government House had not seen the Letters Patent or any copy of them.

The spokeswoman had earlier said that an "electronic version" had been sent and signed in mid-March and that the signing of the paper version was "under way".

However, there is no electronic version of Letters Patent, according to people familiar with Palace workings, and only the parchment bearing the monarch's signature has any force.

An email exchange, in other words, may be no substitute, nor carry any official weight.

However, a former official secretary to successive Australian governors-general, Sir David Smith, said that the standing of electronic versions of Letters Patent would be a decision for the Queen: "If the Queen was prepared to receive an electronic recommendation and send back an electronic copy . . . it must be OK. It has to be."

A Buckingham Palace spokesman would not confirm when Her Majesty had received the Letters Patent from Mr Abbott or whether she had signed it before the Prime Minister's announcement.

"All correspondence between the Queen and her prime ministers and governments is treated in a confidential way by Buckingham Palace," the royal spokesman said.

"Buckingham Palace is not able to confirm signature of any Letters Patent, however, there is no objection if the Prime Minister's Office or Australian Parliament wish to confirm the date, when this is known."
Asked why he had "blindsided" colleagues by announcing knights and dames without informing his cabinet or party room, Mr Abbott stressed the importance of observing proper protocol in his dealings with Her Majesty the Queen.

"In the end the relationship between the prime minister and the monarch is very much a personal one," Mr Abbott told The Conversation website on Friday.

"When it comes to the constitution of the Order of Australia, which is headed by the monarch, this is governed by Letters Patent, which are a matter between the prime minister and the monarchy.

"I think the prime minister is entitled to make these sorts of decisions with the monarch."

As a former director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Mr Abbott has spoken often of the respect required to properly honour Australia's relationship with the Crown.

Mr Abbott has expressed this respect for the Crown consistently throughout his career.

In 2008 he told a gathering of young monarchists: "To me, supporting the monarchy is as natural as respecting your parents".

theage.com.au 2 Apr 2014

There is a LOT more to this, including the validity of her appointment as Governor General.

Western Australian government election fraud

It can be difficult for the 'lay' person of Australia to fathom the level of corruption involved in the governance of this country.

From the plethora of illegitimate laws that are enforced upon the country's people to the extortion that is enforced by the powers that can imprison the masses, the authorities have ultimate control with not only little or no boundaries but also actions that they are fully aware that are above the law.

Many key facts of governance or law are handled behind closed doors, or in secret, where documentation is not available for the 'record' or kept away from public scrutiny.

In today's modern era of mass surveillance of the general populous, the catch phrase (or variations of) used by many is that if you have nothing to hide, you are not doing anything wrong.

The Western Australian government has been caught out with the 'smoking gun' in relation to the fraud pertaining to the elections within the state.

A Writ is a single piece of paper that is issued by the Governor of that state to the Electoral Commissioner, to conduct the election according to the procedure outlined in the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912.

In Western Australia on the Saturday the 5th of April 2014, there is to be held a Senate election.

Currently before the Western Australian (federal) court there is a matter brought forward to stop the election, in relation to the fraudulent Writ (7 Sep 2013) used to enact the election process.

This type of Writ is not available to the perusal by the general populous and is extremely difficult to obtain.

Corpau has been privy to view the document(s) only without taking photographic evidence for publishing purposes.

In this case the 'Writ' is not one piece of paper but two distinctly separate documents.

One piece of paper, supposedly the 'proper' Writ with the (previous) Governor General's signature Quentin Bryce who allegedly witnessed the documents author / signatory Mark Dreyfus QC, Special Minister of state to the Electoral Commissioner of Western Australia the resigned (not valid) Ed Killesteyn.

In normal practice, the author of the document signs below the body of the text, with the witness signing below the author, as is is the job of the witness to factually observe the author signing the document, and not above and to the right of the author of the document as in the case of the Writ.

Another (exact same) document exists but with the hand written remarks by Quentin Bryce stating that: 

 "This writ first came into my possession on its return at 12:25pm on October the 8th 2013 at Sydney", also with Quentin Bryce's signature.

In this case the Writ contains the real signature of the author, Mark Dreyfus, but with a fraudulent (computer stored) signature of the alleged witness Quentin Bryce.

The document has then been modified with the addition of the 'hand written' remarks of Quentin Bryce.

This is the level of fraud and corruption that the Australian government is involved in, which puts the entire election history into dishonour. 

Now one can observe how the legal system together with the corporate media handle this matter.

02 April 2014


Long Winded but Factual!

Some of you may know me, l was the lady who pulled on all the transport blockades for the interstate transport industry, blockade 2000 at the Albury/Wodonga Border and the Nation Wide Shutdown in 2008.

As a representative of the transport industry l made it my business to know the laws they were throwing at us, in this post l will cover TOLL CHARGES and the FRAUD behind it!

Every time you fuel your vehicle you pay fuel excise of 38.4 cents per litre on every litre sold.

Fuel Excise is a TAX and is charged by the Federal Government to pay for building of roads, bridges and tunnels and the maintenance of such. Fuel Excise replaced the ROAD TAX in 1979 when it was abolished after The Razorback Blockades.

Each time l fuel my truck which tows a single trailer I am charged fuel excise in the amount of $55,000.00 per year for just one truck.

Every transport user pays fuel excise even if you are fuelling "off road vehicles like a boat".

Every time you pay registration and license charges part of those charges also go towards the building of roads, bridges and tunnels.

ALL ROADS, BRIDGES AND TUNNELS are therefore paid for by the Australian People and Australian People therefore own those roads, bridges and tunnel systems!

Some state governments when they got low on funds sold off infrastructure including toll roads, bridges and tunnels to mock investors that are in fact subsidiary companies of the state governments and the state government gave those companies the right to charge the people who already own that infrastructure toll charges!

However, they did not build other roads or bridges off those motorway's that would allow road user's to bypass those toll roads.

This in itself is unlawful as how does a government sell off infrastructure that is built in the middle of publicly owned infrastructure and not provide an alternative route for public transport and still have the sale of that infrastructure be a lawful contract?

In addition, those toll roads, bridges and tunnels no longer belong to the Australian Public or does it?
The new owners (Subsidiary companies of that state government) who originally owned that infrastructure are now charging us (the original owners; TOLLS for the use of our own infrastructure)

The reason the state government's set this up this way is because our constitution states that "once a TAX is placed on anything by the Federal Government, no other TAX can be charged by ANY other government department" State or otherwise, even if that tax is removed by the Federal Government!

Therefore, the only way the state governments could make more money out the present road system was by charging tolls under a fake subsidiary company, and the only way they could do that was to sell off the infrastructure to themselves under another name and then that company can charge us tolls or as l like to call it Another TAX!

I know this to be true as the government couldn't risk a private company buying infrastructure in the middle of Public Infrastructure and then

1. Not maintaining it
2. Altering it in some way that it would cause problems with the flow of traffic
3. Going bankrupt and closing it down for good (in effect making that entire motorway or infrastructure completely useless) and it would cripple that entire Road System for public use!

Can you imagine the dilemma?

In which case the government would then have to buy back that infrastructure in whatever condition it is in and at whatever obscene over inflated price that a private company would like to extort/sell it for!

For example: The Burnley Tunnel in Melbourne and The Clem 7 Tunnel in Brisbane; if these alleged private companies were to go broke and close down those tunnels; this would cause traffic jams that would take months to deal with; by forcing all that traffic onto already heavily congested road corridors and hence, which is why the alleged sale of this infrastructure is unlawful as the state governments have not provided exits on this infrastructure as a safety measure to this problem occurring and in not giving the public a choice of using those bridges, roadways, tunnels or not!

To add insult to injury, if you don't pay the toll charges, the government subsidiary companies then employ our own Police Force as debt collectors, in that they issue you with an infringement notice to pay the toll charges. If you don't pay the charges the traffic infringement courts then issue you with a NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE AN INFRINGEMENT WARRANT so your original $2.70 or in the case of a Semi $11.90 then has charges added to it such as

  • Infringement penalty $122
  • Penalty Reminder Notice Costs $22.60
  • Lodgement Fee $48.90
  • Enforcement Order Costs $26.30
As you can see from the above costs this has become a very lucrative business for our State Governments as nowhere on these NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE AN INFRINGEMENT WARRANT does it give you

1. The name of the alleged private company
2. And only makes reference to the alleged debtor as "THE RELEVANT CORPORATION"!
3. It is so lucrative a business that the State Governments have set up a Magistrates Court as an INFRINGEMENTS COURT just to deal with TOLL EVASION and Infringement Notices!

As a private business owner operator l cannot employ the State Police or State Magistrates Court to use as my personal debt collectors, in fact a judge would laugh in my face at taking someone to court who owed me $2.70.

This is also a fair indication that this whole setup by State Governments is a Farce and the biggest Fraud Scam that this country has ever seen; as they no longer try to hide these facts and The Australian Taxation Office will inform you that the Fuel Excise you pay is for the building and maintenance of all road systems throughout Australia.

This is not an issue that can be dealt with by a single person on a single infringement notice and needs to become a class action dealt with by a Constitutional Lawyer someone with the same calibre as Gerrit Schorel - HLVKA


The other thing you need to be aware of is that there are
1. G.S.T (A TAX)
2. Fuel Excise (Another TAX)
3. World Parity Excise (Another TAX)

So on FUEL we pay A TAX on a TAX on a TAX!

All set up Unconstitutionally (TAX wise), (Property Boundary wise) etcetera; with the soul intention of to commit FRAUD against the Australian People by our very own trusting Government over the decades!
Until The People of this great country stand together on Constitutional Grounds to take the State Governments FRAUD REQUETEERING COMPANIES to a COMMONWEALTH HIGH COURT on this issue; then nothing will be done to stop it, and we The People will suffer in silence and just go on whinging about it!

I trust this information is enlightening and opens fellow Australian's eyes to just one UNCONSTITUTIONAL FARCE where our governments have robbed us of our rights!

This is only one reason why we must stick with our Annoted Commonwealth Constitution written by Quick & Garren and not allow our Government to make us a REPUBLIC, as to do so would throw away all our RIGHTS and allow the government to write our Republic Laws without consent from the Australian People!

United We Can and Will Make a Difference!

Yours truly
Lyn Bennetts

Ian Johnston wants speeding fine revenue used for building safer roads

Use speeding fines to build safer roads ... Senior Sergeant Bradyn Murphy performing spee
Use speeding fines to build safer roads ... Senior Sergeant Bradyn Murphy performing speed checks. Picture: Richard Gosling Source: News Corp Australia
A LEADING auto safety expert has called for all revenue from speeding fines to go directly into building safer roads. 

And the government’s constant focus on speed is blinding us to other causes of car crashes, warns Professor Ian R Johnston, former director of Monash University’s Accident Research Centre.

The national road toll fell to its lowest level in 89 years in 2013 but more than 200,000 people are expected to be injured on Australian roads between now and 2020.


Injury rates are not falling as dramatically and are a bigger financial burden on the community because of the ongoing medical treatment.

“Australia is simply not the world leader in road safety it portrays itself to be,” says Prof Johnston.

“Road deaths are only the tip of the iceberg, there are about 30,000 serious injuries a year,” said Professor Johnston. “We’ve got to put the focus on the 30,000 injuries, not on the 1200 deaths.”

Professor Johnston said the community has become complacent about road safety “because we’re forever told the number of people killed on the roads is coming down”.

He says the current levels of speed enforcement need to be maintained, but using fines to lower the road toll “has almost reached its limit” and more needs to be done to address other causes of car crashes.

“We do need a high level of enforcement but I am totally opposed to governments that use speed enforcement as, and I hesitate to use the words, revenue raising,” said Professor Johnston.

“The money from speeding fines goes straight into consolidated revenue and I’m totally opposed to that. Instead, let’s put every dollar we collect straight back into the road system.”

Government focus on speed enforcement has lulled drivers into a false sense of security .
Government focus on speed enforcement has lulled drivers into a false sense of security ... Professor Ian R Johnston‘s main worry. Source: News Limited
Professor Johnston said it was “amazing” the current system works as well as it does “because people are making mistakes all the time”.

“Almost everybody gets a driving licence these days, and all levels of skill are out there,” said Professor Johnston.

“If we taught the whole community to play golf, we’re really asking them never to slice, never to hook, never to miss a putt, it’s ridiculous when you think of it like that.”

Professor Johnston said inattention and poor judgment were just as big a killer on the roads as speeding.
“They see a car, they misjudge how fast it’s approaching at an intersection and a lot of the time they get away with these errors,” he said. “But sometimes they don’t and there are tragic consequences.”

The government focus on speed enforcement has lulled drivers into a false sense of security, the Professor warned.

Professor Johnston is the co-author of a book released this week called: ‘Eliminating Serious Injury and Death from Road Transport, A Crisis of Complacency’.

“Just because you’re not speeding doesn’t necessarily mean you’re driving safely,” he said. “There are many other causes of serious injury and fatal crashes that aren’t being addressed.”

Professor Johnston said the media was caught up in the government’s message of portraying speed as the biggest killer on our roads.

“The crashes we see on television are all the dramatic ones, and by showing us those images all the time we come to believe it’s only hoons who are the problem,” said Professor Johnston.

“The reality is there are so many other factors in serious injury and fatal crashes that authorities, and for that matter the media, are not paying attention to.”

Never become complacent ... A fatal crash near the intersection with Old Northern Rd, Arc
Never become complacent ... A fatal crash near the intersection with Old Northern Rd, Arcadia, Sydney. Source: Supplied
He said about 10 per cent of serious injury crashes were caused by excessive speed, but the majority are caused by other factors such as inattention.
Professor Johnston says because it is hard to enforce fines for driver error, governments need to spend more on building safer roads and upgrading older ones.

“Governments will tell you they’re spending billions on roads but the reality is it is very difficult to accurately measure how much is spent on making the roads safer,” said Professor Johnston.

“Governments will say that resurfacing a road makes it safer. That may be true but they neglect to mention that stretch of road still lacks barriers that stop people from hitting trees, or that the dangerous or poorly marked intersection hasn’t been addressed.”

Professor Johnston said failure to invest sufficiently in safer roads will see almost a quarter of a million Australians injured between now and 2020, “and that’s unacceptable”.

“We wouldn’t accept those numbers in any other mode of transport,” he said.

Professor Johnston praised the work of police and said current enforcement levels should be maintained, but more needed to be done to address the road safety issues beyond speed.

“I want to see governments accept responsibility for building safer roads. If the community understood the size of the problem, there’d be more pressure on governments.”

Professor Johnston said it is cheaper and more profitable for governments to enforce the law and fine drivers than it is to build safer roads.

“We’ve taken police enforcement almost as far as we can, and we’ve got to maintain it. But you can’t regulate against inattention and bad judgment,” he said.

“We’ve got to start thinking about other causes of car crashes. The community needs to say ‘we will not accept this any more’ then governments can start investing in roads and other safety measures.”

Professor Johnston was the director of the Monash University Accident Centre from 2000 to 2006. He is now the Adjunct Professor at Monash University’s Injury Research Institute.

news.com.au 2 Apr 2014

The [foot soldiers] police are involved in providing false statistics regarding alleged 'speeding', as ordered from their superiors, to promote the government's agenda of revenue raising.

Since  there are no repercussions for providing false information to the general populous, the 'authorities' are able to perpetuate a false reality.

From a legal perspective ALL FINES are unlawful, a fact that the general populous are not aware of, but the legal profession is not able to disclose publicly.

The police are FULLY aware of their illegitimate revenue raising actions that are masqueraded as alleged 'speeding' fines, but once again are not able to disclose this information publicly.

The police are also acting as 'solicitors' (soliciting business) for the corporations known as 'courts', by falsely charging people for 'offences' they did  not commit, which has to be proven in a 'court'.

Therese Rein sells Ingeus to US company Providence Service Corporation

Therese Rein, pictured with son Nicholas, has sold her company to a US company.
Therese Rein, pictured with son Nicholas, has sold her company to a US company. Source: News Limited
THÉRÈSE Rein has sold her recruitment company Ingeus to American Providence Service Corporation for what could be a $221 million bounty for former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s wife. 

The deal, announced to NASDAQ, will include an upfront cash payment of $62 million with a further $25 million in restricted stock options over the next four years. There is also a potential $134 million in earn-out payments, which will be based on Ingeus’ performance over the next five years.

Ms Rein will remain as managing director of Ingeus and report directly to Providence chief executive Warren Rustand. She said joining Providence will give Ingeus scale and allow it to expand further to other markets.
The move could also skyrocket Ms Rein’s position on the BRW Rich Women List, an annual compilation of self-made women in Australia.

Ms Rein’s $135 million fortune places her at number 10 on the list, which is topped by Vicky Teoh — the fiercely private founder of TPG Telecom along with her husband David.

However the sale could put her within reach of Toga Group founder Charlotte Vidor who is ranked number two with a $360 million fortune or Topdeck Travel’s Jade Turner with $355 million.

Therese Rein pictured with Kevin Rudd after he conceded electoral defeat in Brisbane.
Therese Rein pictured with Kevin Rudd after he conceded electoral defeat in Brisbane. Source: News Limited
BRW deputy editor Caitlin Fitzsimmons said the sale is a great “moment” to reflect on the strength of female entrepreneurs in Australia who don’t always get the recognition they deserve.

“Sometimes that’s because they’re working in a family business and people have a natural bias to assume the husband is leading the business. [Or] they don’t always want to grow the business to be the biggest it possibly can,” she said.

Ms Rein, the daughter of a physiotherapist and RAAF veteran, founded the company in 1989 as a passion project to help those with injuries and disabilities enter the workforce.

Her father was left wheelchair-bound after a plane crash in World War II, and told he would never walk again.

He went on to work as an engineer and represent Australia at the Paralympics, installing a passion in Ms Rein for the cause.

The company initially won contracts under the Hawke and Howard governments to help disabled people return to work. It now has more than 2000 companies in 10 countries around the world with significant interests in the UK.

Ms Fitzsimmons said while the sale won’t necessarily drastically change things, it will give Ms Rein the recognition she deserves “without Rudd’s political career casting a shadow.”

“It’s always been a shame she hadn’t had more recognition for her business skills. When her business was discussed it was cast in light of what it might mean for husband’s political career,” she said.

Her career has often taken a back seat to Kevin’s.
Her career has often taken a back seat to Kevin’s. Source: News Limited
Providence has bought the parent company of Ingeus, which generates 70 per cent of its revenue in the UK, primarily from government contracts.

Consulting firm Deloitte owns half of the UK operations. The remainder of the company’s revenue comes from markets including France and Saudi Arabia.

Its revenue and adjusted earnings before interest tax, depreciation and amortisation for 2013 was $375 million.

Ms Rein sold the Australian arm of Ingeus in 2007 when Mr Rudd was elected to the prime ministership. She said at the time it would be inappropriate for her to retain ownership of a business which bids for government contracts.

Providence executive Mr Rustand said in a statement: “Ingeus is a good match for Providence, with strong management, deep client relationships and a proven track record of delivering high-quality services.”
Providence chairman Chris Shackleton added: “With the upfront consideration representing less than 40 per cent of the total potential acquisition cost and the remaining consideration tied to performance thresholds, we are confident we have aligned incentives towards generating cash flow and value for our shareholders.

news.com.au 1 Apr 2014

This is an example of corrupt 'Money for Mates' deals as rewards for subservience to the corporatocracy, which are masked behind plausible company sales.

The 'brotherhood' rewards its members, especially well, those who are in a significant positions of power with far greater financial rewards than they actually deserve, only to be hidden behind the banner of 'entrepreneurship'

They are part of the criminal elite untouchable by the law

The corporate media also fails to mention that according to the BRW Rich 200 list, the Salteri family (officially listed in industries; defence and ship building), who are allegedly worth $1.18 billion, contains 2 women Mary Victoria Shaw (Salteri) and Adriana Bianca Gardos (Salteri) out of total of 5 (together with Carlo, Robert and Paul Salteri), making them worth $235 million in equal share.

The Salteri Family are responsible for the fraudulent collection of so called 'fines' via a trademark called CCV (Civic Compliance Victoria).

See articles:



01 April 2014

Victorian anti-protest laws passed amid outcry from public gallery

East West Link
Critics have said the amendment is designed to shut down protest over long-running issues such as Melbourne's East West Link. Photograph: Daniel Fogarty/AAP
A contentious new law that gives police enhanced powers to move on protesters passed the upper house of the Victorian parliament on Tuesday night, amid protest from the public gallery.

Four people were removed by police and were expected to be charged on summons over a disturbance in the gallery after the president of the Legislative Council ordered activists to stop disrupting proceedings.

The amended Summary Offences Act will now give police broad powers to move against protesters who are blocking access to buildings, obstructing people or traffic, or who are expected to turn violent.

The change will also allow the courts to issue an exclusion order preventing those repeatedly told to move on from entering a particular public space for up to 12 months. The maximum penalty for breaching an exclusion order is two years’ imprisonment.

Melbourne’s lord mayor, Robert Doyle, said on Wednesday the changes could prevent regular anti-abortion protesters gathering outside the Melbourne fertility control clinic, an issue Melbourne city council has had difficulty addressing in the past.

But others see the reforms as an attempt by the Victorian government to shut down protest on long-running issues such as the anti-Tecoma McDonald’s group, anti-East West Link picketers, as well as industrial disputes.

The new measures have been criticised by Labor and the Greens, who opposed the bill. The Greens MLC Sue Pennicuik said: “This bill is an absolute assault on the democratic right of Victorians to protest – whether it be on the streets or on public land – about issues of concern to them.”

The Australian human rights commissioner, Tim Wilson, has also called the new laws “excessive”.

theguardian.com 12 MArch 2014

Another policy implemented to cement Australia as a Police State.

The politicians have sold out their slaves in the most atrocious manner akin to that of concentration camp Nazi occupied Germany.

All this occurs while the masses are distracted (read blinded) with football and other sports.

PM makes us nation without honour

'Respect does not come with titles - respect is earned. That belief, as much as any, defines me as an Australian.'

'Respect does not come with titles - respect is earned. That belief, as much as any, defines me as an Australian.' Photo: Andrew Meares

Who is Tony Abbott? Do we know him? I would not ask these questions, for example, of John Howard. His family was very much fashioned by World War I – both his father and grandfather enlisting (one incredible story has them meeting up, on the battlefield, a few hours before the lethal hostilities resumed). John Winston Howard, born in 1939, got his middle name from Winston Churchill. John Howard is what was once known as an Australian Briton.

Born in England, Abbott is a Catholic monarchist – a curious combination. One of his close friends, the late Christopher Pearson, used to hear the Mass in Latin. For a time, I likened Abbott to Guy Crouchback, a character from the pen of the English Catholic novelist Evelyn Waugh, a man with a reactionary and religious bent – hence Abbott's spell in the seminary as a young man.

But how do you square Catholic theology with wealthy Australia offloading its asylum-seeker problem to impoverished countries such as Papua New Guinea and Nauru? Cambodia? I'm sure one Catholic who wouldn't buy it is Pope Francis.

I always thought Abbott shared, with Julia Gillard, an awkwardness with Australian culture that was expressed, in Gillard's case, through her exaggerated accent, and, in Abbott's case, through the countless interviews he gave as opposition leader in his budgie smugglers.

When Rupert Murdoch tweeted his endorsement of Abbott before the last federal election, he described him as a conviction politician. Is he? By his own account, Abbott nearly joined the Labor Party and, prior to him becoming Prime Minister, I always understood him to be a DLP type. Not any more.

The DLP has always been clear about what it deems to be moral issues – for example, West Papua. Last year, Abbott described the actions of three West Papuans who climbed the wall into the Australian embassy in Bali to protest about the plight of their people as grandstanding. He then declared that conditions in West Papua were improving. DLP senator John Madigan flatly told him he was wrong.

In 2011, journalist John Van Tiggelen wrote an extended profile on Andrew Bolt after the case in which Bolt was found guilty under the Racial Discrimination Act. I saw that case up close through the eyes of a friend, Anita Heiss. Irrespective of the argument about that particular legislation, Bolt's treatment of Heiss was journalistically indefensible and caused deep and repeated hurt. I saw that as clearly as I've seen injuries on the football field.

In the aftermath of the case, Bolt was apparently thinking of stepping away from the media when a "very influential person" (Bolt's words) arrived at his house and urged him to keep going. Van Tiggelen established the very influential visitor was Abbott.

Abbott's government is now seeking to alter the Racial Discrimination Act. As has been observed elsewhere, the government's original proposal would have meant that indigenous AFL star Adam Goodes could be called an ape everywhere in Australia but on the football field. Then, this week, Abbott reintroduced knights and dames and, like Henry VIII, the decision was his alone.

The Anzac legend becomes more distorted and hyperbolic every year, but there are elements of the story that are important to me. One is that Australian soldiers wouldn't salute the English officers. Why should they? Respect does not come with titles – respect is earned. That belief, as much as any, defines me as an Australian.

Now Tony Abbott has reinstated a vain and empty honours system from another time and place. The country, which is outsourcing its asylum-seeker problem to its poorer neighbours, has just reinstituted an order of knights and dames in its society. Where is our self-respect?

theage.com.au 28 Mar 2014
It has NOTHING to do with honour.
Australia is a 'country' with a corporate identity, sold out by the business mongers (politicians) to overseas corporations, where the people of Australia are the corporate slaves.

31 March 2014

Smart psychoanalysis: What your metadata can tell the NSA about you

AFP Photo / Michael Loccisano
AFP Photo / Michael Loccisano

Although the NSA is expected to cut down metadata collection, the telecom groups will still keep all the records. It seems like nothing personal, but the technical character of phone calls could surprise with the abundance of hidden material.
In a fact sheet published last week, the Obama administration pledges changes to the National Security Agency’s bulk telephony metadata program.

One of the expected concessions to civil society is the promise to leave records at the telephone companies, so that the government would allegedly be able to obtain them only in an emergency situation. But in the cold light of the day, records will still be kept. So, what could the ‘metadata’ –information on personal phone calls, claimed to contain no names or content – reveal to the NSA or just to the people who have access to them?

Social science has got a clue: and it’s not only the record itself, but also the technical information that could possibly expand the intrusion into private lives of people. A paper published in the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction shows that the data the NSA collects turns out to be of highly personal character.

A group of US and French researchers found that personality of the speaker on the phone could be reliably predicted by the way he or she makes calls. Their database was collected in the MIT Human Dynamics Lab at a leading US research university in a year-and-a-half-long study from March 2010 to June 2011.

The researchers, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, Jordi Quoidbach, Florent Robic and Alex Pentland used the 36 easy-to-obtain metadata elements, which fall into five categories:

Basic phone use including the number of calls;
Active user behaviors, as in the number of calls initiated, and the time it took the subject to answer a text;
Location, or how far the subject moved, the number of places from which calls have been made, and other indicators of so-called radius of gyration;
Regularity of calling routine;
Diversity, defined as the ratio between the subject’s total number of contacts and the relative frequency at which he or she interacts with them.
To figure out the results of the metadata analysis and to compare it with the personality, ‘hidden’ behind it, the scientists had determined psycho-types of 100 students, who participated in the survey (with a final sample of 69 people), and divided them also into five categories:
Extraversion – people who tend to seek stimulation in the company of others, who are outgoing and energetic;
Agreeableness – warm, compassionate and cooperative people;
Conscientiousness – self-disciplined and organized people, who are eager for success;
Neuroticism – people who experience unpleasant emotions more easily;
Openness – intellectually curious and creative ones, who are open to feelings. 

Later on, a special machine-learning algorithm determined which set of technical characteristics referred to what kind of personal traits, one of the so-called Five factor model of personality.

“We let the algorithm determine the right mix,” de Montjoye said. “Each indicator is useful but is conditional on all the other indicators. That doesn’t mean each one is causal or that people who travel more are neurotic. Let’s say that the relationships between A and B are not linear, if you do a linear progression you see no relationship; you do a quadratic progression, you do see how A can predict B.”

With the accuracy of 49% to 63% scientists could be able to predict which personality type a person would belong to – that is 42% better than on average. No obvious correlations, just combination of behaviors and their frequency could predict most common personality types.

And although, according to de Montjoye, “We are unique in a way we use a mobile phone or telephone”, the model he developed alongside with his colleagues can’t name a method to make you less easy to define.

Taking into consideration 6 billion world mobile phone subscribers, this study provides telephone and marketing companies with a vast field to investigate implementation of targeted advertising, for example – undermining the necessity to conduct basic research, involving interviewing. Or, we could say, it gives the scientific community an unbelievable sample of people from all over the world. But these are relatively peaceful purposes.

Despite a reform that was called a ‘turning point’ by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the NSA still has access to ‘impersonal’ data that is not so innocuous as it seems.

rt.com 31 Mar 2014

30 March 2014

Vicroads change of address - Criminal activity supported by the Victorian government

The Victorian government is responsible for a corporate fraud on a grand scale regarding Victorian motorists.

The current premier of Victoria Dr. Dennis Napthine should be reported to the police for criminal activity, BUT since the police work for corporations, this will never occur.

Unfortunately the corporate media do not report on the facts regarding the Vicroads fraud, which effects EVERY SINGLE VICTORIAN motorist.


Vicroads is a trading name.. no longer lawful to use...

The ABN belongs to the Roads Corporation,which is listed as an entity? name....

The Business name, which is the name they are supposed to lawfully trade under, is as follows:

Business name: SprayLine Road Services
Status: Registered
Registration date: 8/01/2014...
Renewal date: 8/01/2017
Cancelled date:
Cancellation under review:
Address for service of documents: 3 Prospect Hill Rd Camberwell VIC 3124
Principal place of business: 3 Prospect Hill Rd Camberwell VIC 3124
Holder(s) details:
Holder Type: Other Unincorporated Entity
ABN: 61 760 960 480

The Victorian Coalition Government, working hard to f#^k over ordinary Victorians whilst simultaneously lining the pockets of their corporate partners in crime.......

Premier Denis Napthine announces a re-elected Victorian Coalition Government will relocate VicRoads’ headquarters to Ballarat, generating 400 jobs and more than... $40 million per year in extra economic benefits for the region. 

Victoria Police are also supporting this corruption and fraud.